Transport: Shared Space Crossings

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord McAvoy]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of shared space crossings on the safety of blind and partially sighted people and other people with a disability.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)]

My Lords, the safety of all road users is of paramount importance. Our guidance on designing shared spaces makes it clear that the needs of all groups, including disabled people, must be considered during development. The design of shared space schemes, including types of crossing and assessment of safety implications, is for local authorities to determine. We have circulated guidance headed “Access for Blind People in Towns”, provided by the National Federation of the Blind, to 3,300 local authority and practitioner contacts.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full Answer. Recently I met with a delegation of people from Gloucester, including a Mr Bill Waddell from the partially sighted and blind organisations, and I have become aware, having since done a bit of work on it, that there is extreme anxiety among that community about the impact of shared space crossings on them. Will the Minister be willing to meet with me and a representative from the Royal National Institute of Blind People to discuss further how we can assist that community in making sure that they do not feel discriminated against? If the Minister is also agreeable to it, I suggest that we include the noble Lords, Lord Low of Dalston and Lord Holmes of Richmond, in that meeting.

[Baroness Kramer]

I would be absolutely delighted to meet. I meet the RNIB quite frequently, and if the noble Lord could ask whether it could bring me an update on the guide dog puppy Kramer, that would be really appreciated.

Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Consequential and Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2013

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My Lords, my intervention will be largely based on reminiscence. In 1968, when the children’s hearings were set up as part of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, I was a diploma in social work student in Edinburgh and I recall the senior civil servant in charge of the Bill coming to speak to us. I suppose that I have spent the subsequent 45 years watching the development of the children’s panel system, which is characterised by being much admired but hardly ever replicated. I certainly believe that the welfare approach is the right approach and that the children’s hearings are more likely to find a suitable conclusion to, or development of, the person’s situation. I think that we in Scotland were right to abandon the juvenile court approach that was extant before 1968.

I fully concur with my noble friend that this legislation is the inevitable result of devolved legislation. It would be entirely wrong for this Parliament not to pass this legislation. Families clearly have the opportunity to go and live wherever they wish. Indeed, sometimes things go wrong when people are on holiday in Scotland. This order certainly has my support; it comes from a good, and unfortunately a rare, example of this Parliament legislating uniquely for Scotland. That was very good and it does not happen very often. It was certainly a Government who had popular support in Scotland, and it will be interesting to see what the future holds in this respect. I certainly give this order a very fair wind.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I totally agree that this is a consequence of the devolution brought about by the Labour Government and that these are natural extensions of it. Before I make my few remarks, I thank the Minister for the helpful communication that he sent me and the offer of assistance. It was much appreciated and I respect him and his staff for that.

There are a few things. It may be that I am nitpicking— I hope not—but my interest was aroused by looking at paragraphs of the order and thinking about how they will be practically implemented. Paragraph 4.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“A children’s hearing or a sheriff may consider that it is in the best interests of a child to stay with a particular person. If that child then absconds from the particular person, for whatever reason, to a place in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, article 9 of this Order allows a constable in any of those jurisdictions to arrest the child without a warrant and take them back to the person”.

I wonder if there are any practical examples, without names of course, where that has happened. What is the justification? That is quite a lot of power being invested in a police officer, and I wonder what the track record is of any of these things happening. In addition, it seems quite a strong measure and I wonder whether there is any authority in existence that reviews a case. Is it kept within the police or within the social work department? Because everyone should be accountable, it certainly might be interesting or useful to see whether there is any review of any cases like that which throw up any problems with it.

I move on to paragraph 4.10, on offences related to absconding. It says:

“A children’s hearing or a sheriff may consider it to be in the best interests of a child to require them to be kept in a particular place or with a particular person”.

Does a child have any representation at that hearing? Who represents the interests of the child? If there is anything that a child is concerned about or is affecting them but is not known to the authorities, what sort of representation does a child get from the care system in that situation?

Moving on to paragraph 4.12:

“This Order prohibits the publication of certain information about proceedings at a children’s hearing or court proceedings under the 2011 Act if it is intended that publication will, or is likely to, identify the child, the child’s address, or the school which the child attends”.

Can we get some clarification of the word “publication”? Recent events show how something can go “viral” on the internet. Would the publication of a child’s name on the internet be a breach of this? Has that been envisaged, or was this framed and implemented at a time when there was no such thing as the internet? It would be interesting to see whether internet abuse would be covered by this and whether action could be taken, no matter how difficult it can be.

Paragraph 4.13 is entitled:

“Transfer of children from Scotland to England, Wales and Northern Ireland: Effect of compulsory supervision order”.

Quite rightly, throughout the order there is reference to the four home countries. Is there any joint body or liaison on this between the countries, or between any two countries involved in a particular case or incident? We all know how bureaucracy can be, and if there is no scrutiny and transparency things can go wrong. Again, paragraph 4.19, which is entitled:

“Child placed in secure accommodation: decision of the head of unit”,

says:

“Under the 2011 Act, a children’s hearing may, in conjunction with a relevant order or warrant, make a secure accommodation authorisation (SAA) which could specify that the child resides at a residential establishment in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Under the 2011 Act, the Chief Social Officer (CSWO) must then make a decision as to whether or not to implement the SAA”.

Again, that seems like an awful lot of authority and responsibility to be given to one person. Are there any methods of scrutinising such decisions, or are they reviewed by the chief social worker? I ask this because—and I am not attacking social workers—no one is perfect, and it is all about scrutiny and accountability.

I have raised a number of questions, and the Minister may not be able to answer them. I find no reasons to doubt the order—in fact I support it—but I would like some clarification on these issues concerning transparency, scrutiny and accountability, bearing in mind we are dealing with children, who are not always able to represent themselves properly.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for his kind words of support. The noble Earl of course has much experience of working with children and young people. I am also grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. If I do not answer any specific questions of his, I will of course write, when appropriate. He asked first about the review of cases and the viewpoint of the child. I am not aware of any problems, but of course I will write if I have any useful information. Many of these matters are of course the responsibility of the Scottish Government, but I am content to pursue the points raised by the noble Lord with the Scottish Government and write to him.

He asked an interesting question about publishing restrictions that were felt to be necessary in the age of social networking systems. The restriction is primarily aimed at journalists, to prevent them from publishing information that could identify a vulnerable child. With regard to social media, if the principal reporter is made aware that a sibling has posted something on a Facebook or Twitter page about the whereabouts of their brother or sister, the police have been known to visit them and ask them to remove the post. This is generally complied with as they have not understood the consequences of that post. The Scottish Government do not expect any changes to be brought forward in these types of situations.

It might be helpful to the Committee if I gave a real-world example of the effect of the order. Suppose that a 15 year-old child is subject to a compulsory supervision order with a condition that he reside at home with his mother in the Scottish borders. The CSO also contains a direction regulating supervised contact once a week with his father. His father is estranged from the mother and resides in Newcastle. The father therefore travels once a week to a social services centre in the Scottish borders for supervised contact with his son.

One day the child is persuaded by his father to travel across the border and stay with him in Newcastle. The child tells his mother that he is off to play football with his friends the following Saturday morning, but instead travels to Newcastle. When the child does not return home as expected, the mother contacts his friends and learns that he has gone to see his father. She contacts social services and the police, who arrange to visit the father. The father denies that the child is with him and conceals the child from police and social services in England.

In this instance, the father would be guilty of an offence under Section 171 of the 2011 Act if he lived in Scotland, but without a Section 104 order—the one that we are debating today—he would not be guilty of the same offence in England. We therefore need the Section 104 order to protect Scottish children across the UK. I am grateful for the support of the Committee and I beg to move.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Devolution of Policing and Justice Functions) Order 2012

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Wednesday 18th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the devolution of policing and justice in 2010 was a major step forward on the path towards the political stability that Northern Ireland now enjoys. Noble Lords will be aware that the prospect of devolving policing and justice was raised in the Belfast agreement of 1998, the joint declaration of 2003 and the St Andrews agreement of 2006. However, it was only in 2010, through agreement reached at Hillsborough Castle, that a clear timetable was established for the devolution of policing and justice functions to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which then formally took place on 12 April 2010.

It was necessary as part of the devolution process to make a number of consequential changes to the statute book in order to transfer a wide range of statutory functions conferred on government Ministers to the appropriate authorities in the devolved Administration. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Devolution of Policing and Justice Functions) Order 2010 made the vast majority of these transfers of functions. However, due to the timing of the 2010 order, there were provisions of the same parliamentary Session that did not take into account the transfer of policing and justice functions and these now require amendment. In addition, a small number of provisions were also either missed or now require technical correction.

The main purpose of the draft order before us today is therefore to make the necessary amendments to the statute book to complete the transfer of policing and justice functions to the devolved Administration. Most amendments are achieved through straightforward substitutions of references such as “the Department of Justice” for “the Secretary of State”. Where the function being transferred involves both policing and justice matters and excepted matters, such as national security or immigration, provision has been made to divide these functions between the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice to make clear their respective roles and responsibilities. This follows the approach taken to similar provisions in the 2010 order.

I can confirm that the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland has been fully consulted during the preparation of this draft order and fully supports it. The same is true of Whitehall departments that may be affected. I hope that noble Lords will also support the making of this draft order. It may, in effect, make relatively minor, common-sense amendments to the statute book but this is in pursuit of the much more significant aim of completing the devolution of policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Executive, which itself has led to a level of political stability in Northern Ireland not seen in a generation. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, I immediately declare that the Official Opposition are in support of this move. It is worth spending a minute or so on how we got here. As the Minister rightly said, the devolution of policing and justice was a huge achievement after long and painstaking negotiations. I was long enough in the other place to remember the commendable efforts of the Government led by Sir John Major in initiating this process. When Labour came to power, we knew how sensitive and complicated all these issues were. We worked with all parties and the Irish Government to ensure that the transfer of power and the creation of a new Department of Justice in Northern Ireland were stable and sustainable.

David Ford is doing a very good job in difficult circumstances. He has the full support of Vernon Coaker, shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in carrying out his challenging and important job. He and the Northern Ireland Executive have done good work in continuing progress in building peace. However, the violence of last week, most notably in Belfast, where 20 police officers were injured, shows that there is much to be done. Parading and areas of dispute around parades have a knock-on effect on community relations and the terrorist threat. Heightened tensions mean heightened security and we should all be aware of the desire of dissident republicans to wreck the peace process. I pay tribute to the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the courage and determination they show every day to protect and serve everyone in Northern Ireland.

Significant responsibilities on national security still lie with the Northern Ireland Office. The boundaries are sometimes blurred between what is national security and what is the responsibility of the devolved Administration and the PSNI. That is inevitable and part of the process. We all know that there are no cut-and-dried, easy solutions in Northern Ireland. In the attempt to take everyone with us, there will be blurred edges.

This order is an attempt to do something about that, and my contribution today will be mainly to ask some questions. I am not quite sure of one or two things. I apologise for that. I am new to this job and to studying the legislation affecting Northern Ireland. I hope to learn quickly enough. Article 7 says:

“(2) In paragraph (1) for ‘Secretary of State’ substitute ‘Department of Justice’.

(3) In paragraph (2) for ‘Secretary of State’ substitute ‘appropriate authority’”.

Is there a reason why these cannot both be allocated to the Department of Justice? In paragraph (4), can the areas of authority be defined a bit better between the Department of Justice and the Secretary of State? Can this section be explained a bit better? I do not quite grasp why the responsibility lies where it does.

In Article 14, there seems to be some dubiety about the status of the National Policing Improvement Agency. I am informed by our Home Office spokesman that the agency is being abolished as part of the Crime and Courts Bill. If it is being abolished, why is it mentioned here?

Apart from these questions, the Official Opposition fully support this move. It makes further progress in devolution in Northern Ireland and we are fully supportive of the Government’s actions.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, I, too, support this small piece of legislation. I do not think it is particularly contentious, but I would like to use the opportunity to pick up on some matters of devolution.

As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, has said, a considerable amount of work has been done in ensuring that these last few pieces of the devolution of policing and justice functions are completely satisfactorily. When my predecessor as leader of the Alliance Party, Sir Oliver Napier, was Minister of Law Reform in the ill fated 1974 power-sharing Executive, one of the key problems was that policing and justice functions had not been devolved. Therefore, when things got out of control it was, partly at least, because the power-sharing Assembly did not have the possibility of enforcing its own rule. When my successor as leader of the Alliance Party, David Ford, became Minister of Justice, it was in the context of agreement on the devolution of policing and justice—something that Seamus Mallon, the deputy leader of the SDLP and later Deputy First Minister, pointed out was the absolutely critical thing in ensuring that there was a serious and stable devolution settlement. He was right about that, although for a long period it was believed that it was so contentious that it was quite impossible. There was an element of truth in that. Without other political agreements, perhaps it was impossible.

However, there is one aspect of policing that remains contentious and difficult, when many others are now able to be discussed—a policing board, district policing partnerships and so on. It was the aspect referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, in which I have been slightly involved lately—the question of contentious parades. These are not easy matters, as all noble Lords around the Room know very well. One of the things that struck me is that some of those who have been saying in strident terms that the problem is mistaken judgments by the Parades Commission have had least to say in terms of proposals for better decisions by a Parades Commission or another body. I am not sure that I see another way of addressing this problem until we find ourselves considering another instrument that is devolving responsibility to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister or to the Executive itself.

For as long as there is a Parades Commission that is acting independently and where elected representatives at the most senior level do not have responsibility for decisions being taken about these issues, but policing itself has to gather up the problems, we will continue to have this kind of contention. I should like to ask the Minister whether, if this order goes through—as I have no doubt it will—he will take back to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other colleagues a proposal that they look seriously at the devolution of responsibility to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister whereby they would have to resolve the problem of parades. Some might say, “That is impossible”, but some would have said that about policing in general. It is not a sustainable position, when people are appointed to make difficult decisions and are backed up by the Government here in London, that those decisions are always second-guessed by way of criticism without there being any specific proposal for a realistic alternative decision.

I hear each side saying that the answer is for the fellows on the other side to back down. We were very used to that in the past, but there must come a time when we will have another devolution order in this place that will put the responsibility back to where it actually belongs, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to make decisions about these matters and then to live with them.

However, I want to say how much I back this order and how striking it is that an issue involving devolution of policing and justice, modest as it is, is no longer a matter of contention.

[Lord McAvoy]

Has the noble Lord had any thoughts about the process that could be used by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to arrive at conclusions?

[Lord Alderdice]

I am hesitant because, of course, as soon as one makes a proposal, the likely response is to knock it down. However, I make the following observations. First, it is clear that the elected representatives did have a set of proposals that they were prepared to bring to the Assembly but which the Orange Order at that stage was not prepared to accept. I believe that the Orange Order has come some distance since that time and, in my discussions, properly mandated representatives of the Orange Order engaged with local nationalist constituents. That would not have happened some years ago. It was a promising thing, even if agreement was not able to be reached. I encourage the First and Deputy First Ministers and the parties in the Assembly to pick their proposals up and to try to push them through.

Postal Services Bill

Lord McAvoy Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Razzall]

No, I actually said that the noble Lord, instead of making party-political, snide comments, should actually learn the facts. The facts are that the Royal Mail at the moment is seriously under pressure delivering to Norwood Green and Hampstead, not to outer Wales, which is easy for Royal Mail to deliver to. That is the truth and he cannot deny it just because he wants to make Labour party-political points.

[Lord McAvoy]

I am tempted, especially by the last speaker. I am sure that every Liberal candidate in Scotland will welcome his intervention, but I can assure noble Lords that every Labour candidate will welcome it even more. The noble Lord mentioned the “outer” areas. Such contempt—such arrogance and such an unctuous dismissal of other people's points of view in this House—is against the very nature and style of this House. That is one of the most arrogant, aggressive statements that I have ever heard in my short time in this place.

I support the contents of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston. There is so much practical common sense in it that I do not know why—there is no logic or reason—it should not be accepted.

I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Touhig for his amendment because of its reference to the “outer” areas of Britain—the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, will go down extremely well and will be well quoted. The point is that we have devolution. Let there be no doubt that I speak as a confirmed unionist—I always have been and always will be—who has no truck with the nationalists in Wales or Scotland, particularly Scotland. However, the democratic will of this United Kingdom Parliament set up the institution of the Scottish Parliament. To have devolution and not involve the devolved Administrations and not have lines of communication to them is a failure of the UK Government.

I would also like to restore a bit of balance—this is also relevant to the amendment—given that I have heard the phrase “the previous Government” about 25 times this evening. As my noble friend Lord Stevenson mentioned, the Labour Party manifesto said that all proceeds from any sale of the Post Office and Royal Mail would go straight back into modernisation and assistance. That is the sort of thing that would have helped Scotland. I understand that that was also a Liberal promise, but then again, like so many promises that the Liberals made, it vanished into a haze when they got the shock of being asked to deliver on their promises. We would have done that, but not one person from the Liberal Benches has mentioned that they had that commitment as well. Their whole principle is to surrender for power—or the illusion of power—because they have to be in government for a wee while.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Empey, here—are different because, unlike most parts of England, they comprise extensive geographical areas that can be sparsely populated. Some of those areas are not particularly well-off economically. However, there is a missed opportunity in the Bill. Previously in Scotland, there were closures of some post offices, which I fully accept were uneconomic—the closures were opposed by local Liberals, who are opportunists par excellence. There is an opportunity in Scotland, and no doubt in Wales and bits of Northern Ireland, where local authorities have a much more involved role locally than some of the big English councils. There is more localism there, and I believe that there is an opportunity to keep post offices going, in light of local circumstances. In Scotland—I am talking particularly about Scotland here, as I know it best, although I know Northern Ireland well, too—local councils could have co-operated with government and all types of bodies, including co-operatives, to ensure that a local service was still provided and not swept away. I declare an interest as a Labour and Co-op Peer. A big opportunity is being lost here. Scotland has a number of outreach services such as temporary vans or mobile post offices, so the whole difficulty facing the universal service in Scotland is different from that facing metropolitan areas in England.

I do not know about Hampstead and Norwood Green, but I know that that universal service is threatened in Scotland because of this Bill. What we have here is an authoritarian Government backed up by—I am astonished to say—an authoritarian Liberal Party that is only interested in getting legislation through. We in Scotland are going to lose out. I think Northern Ireland will lose out. My noble friend Lord Touhig has indicated that Wales will lose from it—there is a big loss there.

However, there will be a price to pay, because there are elections coming. In England, the local council elections will soon put pay to the Liberal votes. In Scotland, we have renewed vigour in our party, as have other parties, because Liberals have been exposed. In Wales, I think that the same will apply for elections to the Welsh Assembly. One thing about the House of Lords and the House of Commons—the Westminster Parliament—is that they provide an angle on British politics. Great things are being discussed here that, come election time, will have terrific resonance outside.